From noras@cox.net Sun Mar 14 09:46:52 2004
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sun, 14 Mar 2004 09:46:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lakemtao02.cox.net ([68.1.17.243])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30)
	id 1B2ZhL-00020T-TM
	for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Sun, 14 Mar 2004 09:46:52 -0800
Received: from nora.cox.net ([68.228.12.146]) by lakemtao02.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.06.08 201-253-122-130-108-20031117) with ESMTP
          id <20040314174620.PCLP13694.lakemtao02.cox.net@nora.cox.net>
          for <lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org>;
          Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:46:21 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20040314124734.034dab10@pop.east.cox.net>
X-Sender: noras@pop.east.cox.net
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:48:24 -0500
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
From: Nora LeChevalier <noras@cox.net>
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Story time
In-Reply-To: <20040312233149.328.qmail@web41902.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20040312175709.00ab59f0@pop.east.cox.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-archive-position: 606
X-Approved-By: noras@cox.net
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-original-sender: noras@cox.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-list: lojban-beginners

At 03:31 PM 3/12/04 -0800, la xorxes. wrote:

>--- Nora LeChevalier <noras@cox.net> wrote:
> > At 04:39 AM 3/12/04 -0800, la xorxes wrote:
> >
> > >Under the usual interpretation, the two negatives will cancel
> > >and {noda viska node} would be equivalent to {roda viska su'ode},
> > >"everybody saw something".
> > >
> > >To say that nobody saw anything you'd have to say {noda viska su'ode}
> > >or {roda viska node}.
> >
> > No, "noda" means "there are zero things (da) such that", so "noda viska
> > node" means "there are zero x's and zero y's such that x sees y".  I
> > thought it was a nifty way of saying "No one (yeah, sure) saw anything
> > (yeah, right)".
>
>Hmmm...
>
>The standard reading is:
>
>There are zero x's such that there are zero y's such that x sees y.
>
>In other words, no x is such that it sees no y's.
>
>In other words, every x sees at least one y.
>
>Having said that, I do prefer the "nobody saw nothing" reading, which
>we called "coordinate scope" in a recent discussion. Here you can
>find a lot of talk about this for those of you who are brave enough
>and interested:
>
><http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Discussion%3A+Three+dogs+attacked+four+men>
>
>mu'o mi'e xorxes

My mistake.  What xorxes. says sounds right.  I take it back.


-- 
mi'e noras                                             noras@cox.net
Nora LeChevalier